I have no trouble agreeing that a democratic anti-imperialist movement (say the Indian National Congress) is preferable to an authoritarian one. But the fact is that the vast majority of anti-imperialist movements have been nationalist-authoritarian, whether with a leftist or rightist cast.

It was perfectly obvious from how North Vietnam was run, for example, that the Viet Cong’s victory would mean a Stalinist hellhole. The fact that lots of good people didn’t want to face up to this reality doesn’t mean the facts weren’t available.

OTOH, countries which are domestically democratic have not acted very differently from ones that are domestically authoritarian when they occupy overseas colonies. Probably the worst in the classical era of European colonialism was democratic Belgium’s treatment of the Congo. That’s because the logic of occupation and the logic of democracy are the opposite. Imperialism is never democratic for the imperialized, although the folks in the metropolis may enjoy human rights and liberal democracy, just as South African whites under apartheid essentially did.

So the old left view—that anti-imperial movements should be critically supported regardless of their domestic politics—wasn’t as stupid as all that. It is basically the Red Dawn “because we live here” point. National self-determination is a necessary, albeit obviously not sufficient, condition for democratic self-determination. So the project of liberal imperialism is contradictory from the outset.

Not that I support the Iraqi Sunni “resistance.” I think, in the end, you have to make a judgment call about whether a particular movement is dominantly sectarian or dominantly anti-imperialist. But the “decents” go to the other extreme and support the occupation, presumably on the basis that it will ultimately bring about a more democratic Iraqi order, which I think was always delusional. Only Iraqis can bring about a democratic Iraqi order.

‘So in practice it’s very difficult to sort out ‘objectively’ resistance movements into ‘democratic’ and ‘anti-democratic’ before they achieve power’

Maybe one indicator is the way these movements run the areas in which they take control. Iraqi journalists working for Reuters and the Guardian visited some towns where the Sunni Arab ‘resistance’ had taken control, and found such measures as the execution of adulterous women. See http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=4284419 for details.

While Engels expressed this view in 1848, he reversed 9 years later and opposed French colonialism. Marx went through a similar evolution. He started out writing articles for the Herald claiming that India was on a civilizing mission in India, but eventually condemned its presence as based on larceny.

For an excellent historical analysis of British “leftist” imperialist apologetics of the sort that finds its latest expression in Geras, Harry’s Place, Nick Cohen et al, see:

http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2006/04/peculiarities-of-pro-war-left.html

My basic point was that it’s not so easy to distinguish between ‘democratic’ and ‘anti-democratic’ insurgency movements avant le chose. Some resistance movements which seemed quite innocent have turned out to be psychotic monsters when they gained power. On the other hand, resistance movements which seemed ferocious have sometimes turned out to be quite pragmatic (even ‘liberal’) in practice.

(cf Zimbabwe and South Africa….who could have predicted the two different outcomes?).

So in practice it’s very difficult to sort out ‘objectively’ resistance movements into ‘democratic’ and ‘anti-democratic’ before they achieve power

No you are quite right. The Sunnis do indeed want the survival of a relatively strong state, mainly as you say, because they don’t have any oil in their part of Iraq.

However, my deeper point remains. I wonder how many Iraqis REALLY see themselves as being Iraqis and not Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Turkmen etc, who happen to have found themselves in Iraq.

One last point that should be made. According to the ‘decents’…actually I don’t need to go on do I? Everyone knows what they think.

Anyway you won’t be surprised to hear that this is not how people in Iraq see things. According to the decents there is a ‘baathist-jihadist’ alliance and yada yada yada.

It is very unlikely that this bears any relationship to the truth. On the contrary, Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda terrorists have been widely despised by the native insurgency.

And contrary to the canards about ‘neo-baathism’ etc. (it should be noted that the decents have never at any point produced any statement from any insurgent or insurgency linked political movement to back this up but ‘facts are funny things’ arent they?)….it is unlikely that the Sunni insurgents actually want to bring back Saddam. Instead they see themselves as being predominantly secular (NOT JIHADIST) insurgents fighting against IRANIAN IMPERIALISM. Sunni (racist?) views of Shias have always viewed them as being a bunch of crazed religious fundamentalists, and the Sunnis justify what they are doing by saying that, rather than fighting for theocracy, they are fighting against it, and that the Americans have helped to bring an Iranian theocracy to power. Hence the sudden volte face of some Sunnis, thinking that actually if the Americans stay they might bolster the insurgents in their fight against the Shia/Iranian government.

But, yes, the old left would accept that most “wars of national liberation” are conducted by people with anti-democratic politics, and dubious tactics. If you leave aside the Soviet defensist tankies (among whom we can count Harry), the old left supported the “resistance” in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which was basically indistinguishable from the one in Iraq today.

The Eustonites are picking up an earlier Marxist view that Engels expressed in relation to Algeria: namely, that it is the role of capitalist colonialism to bring the non-white countries into modernity and thereby make them ready for socialism. But looking back on the twentieth century, they claim to be anti-colonialist. Well, you can’t have it both ways. If it is right to support the cause of democratic imperialism against indigenous undemocrats in Iraq today, why not in Vietnam and Algeria in the past?

He also says: US military commanders are now dubious about the chances of winning an outright military victory over the Sunni rebels who have a firm core of supporters among the five million-strong Sunni Muslim community. That’s my point exactly, the community thing.

By your account the old left would support Al Qaeda on anti-imperialist grounds, no? In reality, of course, there’s often a thin line, or no line at all, between anti-imperialism and counter-imperialism c.f. Japanese nationalism.

The old left line was always to support non-democratic anti-imperialists against democratic imperialists. Geras and co. are free to disagree with that line, but they can’t claim continuity with it.

That was a link. Here’s another:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/717/re2.htm
Sunni leaders have already concluded that the silence of their Shia counterparts represents a tacit approval of the assault on the predominantly Sunni town.

The difference in Shia reaction to the first and second assaults on Fallujah was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.

Actually, I don’t think this is true at all. I distinctly remember press reports about Shia Muslims in Baghdad being shocked and disgusted and Mr. al-Sadr expressing solidarity on several occasions.

I don’t have a link, but neither do you; and when you state something like this as a fact you should be able to prove it.

I don’t have the references either, but I’ll admit to having been quite surprised a couple of months ago to have brought to my attention statistics released by the US military in Iraq to the effect that 75% of insurgency attacks were directed at coalition troops.

Obviously one would expect them to have more accurate statistics for attacks on themselves than on Iraqi civilians, police etc., but still.

It’s been a truism on some parts of the left (and I’ve seen it sneaking into mainstream press circles in recent months) that much of the nationalist Sunni resistance hates the anti-civilian terrorist actions of the religious fanatics (supposedly foreign). I don’t know how clean the division is and I suspect that there have been some anti-Shiite atrocities by nationalist Sunnis as well, but there is probably some division nonetheless. Most of the attacks made by the Sunni resistance have been against the American forces—it’s just that the minority that are directed against “soft” civilian targets are likely to create a much bigger death toll and get much more attention in the press, for a couple of different reasons. (One, because it should. Attacks that kill more people should get more coverage. Two, because it’s been convenient until recently to claim that all the resistance forces are uniformly barbaric Sunni monsters. I noticed that storyline beginning to change in the NYT sometime last year, when I started reading about the US trying to sweet-talk the Sunnis and maybe reason with the nationalists. This also coincided with the period when the US started to openly criticize the Shiite torture centers and death squads, which have probably helped drive many Sunnis into supporting the resistance.)

No references handy, so of course there’s no reason for you to take my word for it. But I’m feeling lazy, so you’ll have to do your own googling if you’re curious.

Yet:

“They are fighting against the occupation forces and they are fighting inside their own province. The resistance inside Anbar is popular (democratic) inside Anbar.”

This would be fine if the insurgency were seperatist. In that case the support of the population of Anbar would be sufficient. But the insurgency appears to be the opposite of seperatist – in fact it seems very hostile to any movement towards federalism in Iraq. It seems to very much want to maintain a unitary republic centred in Baghdad. Thus the support of the population of Anbar is not sufficient to render the resistance democratic, not if Iraq as a whole is the relevant unit, as the resistance appears to think.